It is a accidentally acquired fetish, not sought out at any stage, built up over time in a manner not dissimilar to a log jam on a feral river… a tree here and there falls in, everything gets jumbled at a bend. Nothing intentional about it, purely random, but it plays to a seeming logic when examined. The river chooses this as much as the paraphilic.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
I had, for example, a psychology professor into leather fetishes. He couldn’t figure it out for the longest time, till he tracked the phenomena down to the root occurrence, when he list his virginity in the back of a old car with leather seats. The leather against his skin combined with the intensity of the sex act for the first time made a major impression on him, but in a way he didn’t expect… he was heavier, so was on the bottom… ended up as a sub as a result, but that is only because he continued to crave the intensity of that moment and his connection to her, being his first. He is a rare case, able and competent enough to trace it back to one occurrence, and wise enough to grasp replicating the leather or sub position… which was purely accidental, wasn’t going to bring that close connection or thrill of unique intimacy back. His case is rather simple too… it has only one root, paraphilia can be rather complex, with multiple roots to it, just isolating one doesn’t quite solve it, and even if you have them all sorted out, the impulse towards any given aspect can be quite natural and appropriate… it is when they aggregate it becomes a disturbing monstrosity, leading to potentially absurd and dangerous behavior.
Paraphilia isn’t supposed to make sense, as it is a partial conscious rationalization that has no hidden unconscious aspect to it, they just are, sometimes widespread enough to have a name and subculture attached, other times solitary and unnameable, a repetitive sexual pattern, a learned response stemming from a flaw in categorical and situational blending.
Our society accepts deterministic and non-deterministic philosophies regarding human will (free will debate) and identity. We try to play both ends of the presumption… we maximize our responsibility and free will, in search for Max pleasure, while communalizing and limiting it, legally if need be, when it becomes threatening. When it comes to sexual impulses, it hits us in a philosophical blind spot we as a civilization are in no place to yet answer… paraphilia, especially pedophilic aspects of it (most everyone has paraphilic aspects to us, though most not everyone pedo) we know generally can’t be “cured” or reformed. In cases of murders, especially ones of passion for reasons that can be readily grasped (walked in on wife cheating on him, killed her… regretted it) we can say once they get out “you did your time, your free”. Hard to get a job when your a murderer, but it happens enough, your not presumed to have a paraphilia linked to it… your unlikely to repeat it. Some serial killers do… they are fucked, stigmatized.
A arsonist… harder time. We presume something is going on. A fireman can innocently enough be drawn into arson for the most nobelest of reasons… they get addicted to the hormonal flush of seeing a fire over time, begin to crave it. A part of you pities them… they have a legit condition, acquired by accident in service to the common good, but by accident lost out to this temptation that unexpectedly aroused them. They wanted to do good, but ended up in pursuing evil.
Same for homosexuality, especially gender dysphoria, which sadely enough we are now informed under considerable pressure we must celebrate. The search for a scientific gay cure in fact has been specifically outlawed in some places, and a large amount of social cohesion is applied to making wide stretches of illogical and blantant lying be accepted as fact. You can be wrong for stating something simple and naturalistic, such biologigical observations otherwise accepted as true and factual regarding the state of gender. Is someone a man or woman? If someone is obviously a man, yet insists they are a female, you gotta pretend they are a female, despite being a obvious male… or risk being labeled as a horrible person, perhaps even facing legal charges for not playing along with the demands resulting from their paraphilic desires to be identified. It is probably the most outrageous aspect we have as a civilization, one I think future civilizations will look back at us as absurd. I saw a list where two users on this site (Gib and Arc) had been intentionally musconstruing the sex of another forum user so as to match up to his fetish. This isn’t a healthy group behavior, and when you comply your merely feeding a psychological disease, one our civilization for whatever bizarre reason refuses to identify and seek remedy for, legally prohibiting it in fact despite a general lack of ethical reason why not, or reason why it couldn’t be done scientifically… no more worst so than the rest of psychological experimentation in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is a case where paraphilia, social antagonidm, and faith in the prescriptions of scientism has joined forces together against science and reasoning. If you don’t accept the declarations of this new religion (and it is a religion, cultic behavior and ideological fanaticism) then you lack empathy automatically… according to them. Nobody bothers to check to see if you have it, or if they in reverse even have it. All too often, they don’t present a critical eye to the phenomena… their fellow liberal sycophants, and drive such individuals to their deaths by always supporting them and never offering them a much needed critical wake up statements of saying “You know, your my friend, I support you, but your a man, not a woman, dressing like that isn’t helping you get to the root of your problem”. Instead they are reassured, but left internally unfulfilled, given the impossibility of their endeavor, mutilate their bodies in fruitless sex change operations, then later commit suicide… feeling alone and alienated. Ironically, liberal society chooses to alienate those willing to admit “The Emperor had no clothes”, instead of admitting simply to the existence of the problem.
In Zoot Allures case, given the information on the net, and what I’ve read searching this site, his paraphilia is pedophilic… perhaps not quite molestation, but he does get off on being watched and watching doing obscene things. Flashers are similar, such as nude streakers… we can much easier tolerate nudists taking off across football fields than potential or known pedophiles, it is this seemingly added dimension that freaks everyone out.
Why? Why is something only a honest and highly intelligent, introspective person in his shoes can answer. He may not be in full possession of these qualities. We try to jab dualisms like conscious vs unconscious, subjective vs objective… psychologically in regards to paraphilia these are meaningless. It is a addiction to a scenario and a visual… only partially rationalized, perhaps gained through a web of experiences. Even if the paraphilic completely grasped his situation, he is still addicted to it… a deeply embedded learned response. A much loathed “Gay Cure” would, in liberal speak, paradoxically target these very similar, perhaps identical impulses in a pedophile. There isn’t much difference in the presumed neural actuality of the two, as they appear to largely parallel one another.
So end result is… in a society guided by liberal democratic expectations of freedom to choose, and avoidance of responsibility for negative actions, when we can dodge them by claiming we can be whatever we want to be… as all things must be equal, the end result is these segments of our society is ostrachized and driven repeatedly into absurdly cruel situations well past the scope of their original crimes.
A sex offender, like a arsonist, and many murders, find many doors economically closed to them… they “choose” to be this way. Pedophiles get it the worst, they are habitually homeless, are forced to constantly check in, despite their prison term being over, and are driven to a point of despair most homeless without such criminal records don’t experience, as they still have some self respect and hope of future.
We do this because society does, infact, recognize pedophilia as a very different kind of crime than the rest of our crimes, it is involuntary yet horrible. The reason why it is horrible is because we put all our stock in raising the next generation… someone preying on them of all people, a group naturally trustic, defenseless, and naive, is seen rightly as a severe threat.
This threat isn’t as apparent in someone being gay or a cross dresser. A bad influence? Yes… but a non-pedophile gay guy generally isn’t in a position to attack and rape your generally straight male. Sometimes, not usually… and females of course have no fear of gay guys. They aren’t inherently threatening to the youth. But the paraphilia is processed much the same for their fetished aspects. (Straight people have fetishes too, all do actually, just we choose to accept them as normal as they are common. BJs are a example, clothing and fashion addictions, etc).
Where we drawl the line isn’t as arbitrary as a confused nihilist would want us to think, juggling values as being seemingly equal. Humans tend to drawl the line on threatening behaviors, and those who just dont “feel right” ostraschizing and even being violent towards them. This isn’t accidental, seen across many mammals, and even non-mammals, like ants, often turning homicidal. I by no means advocate homicide, or any sort of repression whatsoever, but this impulse to hate and anger by mere observation does indicate how we associate traits, where we drawl the lines.
Some species focus on a pheremone, such as ants sniffing a queen… if she gives off the wrong kind, she is killed. Why? Don’t know, it is presumed something to do with bad chromosomes. Arctic foxes kill introverts… no pheremone involved, but neurotransmitter balances in the mind must differ for a introvert to exist over a extrovert… are they focusing on behavior, chemical dents, or can their brains visually process biological cues we are missing, similar to his we can sense if someone has fake or real boobs, fake or real hair, or even a “bad hair transplant” or “work done on their face”. This is species specific, as non foxes, hard to assert just what, other to note introverted behavior and the corresponding death.
We see gays and pedophiles traditionally killed around the planet, yet at the same time, we see some paradoxically openly thrive in these very societies, and even applauded, given considerable social advancement at times. Ottoman Empire outlawed homosexuality, yet Lawrence of Arabia was raped by a high official. Sex Outside of marriage outlawed, but young men sexually groomed by senior males… but at the same time severe punishments dished out for these very crimes. Inconsistencies of categorialrejection and acceptance tend to destroy the reliability of the hate model of identification as a sole indicator alone… this give and take has to be balanced out.
We as a society awkwardly accepts, still quite grudgingly, unnaturally, forced homosexual acceptance, but vehemently rejects pedophilia, even though on a paraphilic level, they may operate identically. We ostracized those who hate one group, accept those who openly hate the others as good… but we make odd allowances.
One example… female sexual predators… not often hated by men. Honestly… how many of you who hate pedophiles here, actually hate these attractive female teachers who have sex with their male teenage students? Very few, wish it happened to me in fact. We can point to the pyramid of needs, and say no threat. We can… but is this a universal rule, reflective of how the mind thinks, or just suggests our capacity to hate or reject requires a intellectual aid to explain the qualifications of a threat beyond mere appearances (such as uncanny valley, a “creepy guy”, or someone acting faggy and weird".)
I think we evolved to hate instinctively, but also to economize our hatred… you can’t go around trying to kill everyone and everything, or else constant warfare would wipe your own genes out (like what happened to the Nazis, back to back world wars drained them of their more militant traits), so we try to discern what to prioritize. Prior to language, this would of been people who look damn weird (birth defects, weird hormonal imbalances that we’re not worth keeping around… if food is scarced, a small tribe might be better off without that faggy kid tripping all over the place, unlike a modern society that can afford to keep them around as a luxury at worst, or allow them to become a useful specialist at best… primitive tribes had few specialist positions, especially in famine times).
Likewise, picking who your going to make good friends with, could decide your own fate. Whose family you will marry into, their ability to offer kin support, such as economic aid, or backup in warfare… having sexual freaks might not be the best backup in battle, as these disorders are often reinforced by biological issues (cause or coincidence of corallary?).
Once language came around… it complicated stuff. Our ability to observe and denote taxonomy is great geographically, but not so much psychologically, as it isveasier to “objectify” large swatches of land, such as a forest, over say a psychological nuance that not all quite grasp… we feel it, but not quite in a position to name it, comprehend it, how we actually differ.
Ironically, this also offers a silver lining… it shows our ability to hate, while never without instinct based in biological identification of others, can recognize built into itself tolerance… you literally cant kill them all, as we all have something of it, at least the potential, and it comes and goes. Even Hitler, who abstractly sought to kill the Jews on a universal categorical level, gained it initially from direct school ground exposure to Jews (good evidence it was actually Wittgenstein, who attended the same school as Hitler), and built on this with German stereotypes, carrying it farther than any (well, George Bernard Shaw could carry it that far admittedly)… did have phases of allowing Jews to leave largely unmolested from Germany on par with earlier German Zionist standards… Zionism was founded in the belief in the late 19th century there was no place for Jews, however culturally German they were, in Germany anymore, with a desire to immigrate elsewhere. Hitler paralleled this at times, even signed a well known treatise with the Jews encouraging them to emigrate to British Palestine. Hitler of course dropped even this pretence of intellectual striving for compromise between his own thick headed impulses and his desire to compromise intellectual grands regarding what to do in pro and anti semetic circles… Holocaust happened, but he did for a while show the capacity to compromise and even adapt the ideas of his opponents favorably for at least a while. It shows there is no such thing as blind hate, it is malleable… but the malleability itself isn’t immune from hatred:
ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 … 18,00.html
News flash from a very current British scandal. Most of Europe is strongly Anti-Semetic, general rule is the more liberal, the more backwards you are in this. Why? Everything is presumed malleable, everything is taken on a utilitarian bases, and big issues are scapegoated and alienated on those with little to no responsibility to the actual ills. The former London mayor has been kicked from the labour party for uttering historically correct (yes, correct, 100% certainty it is correct) statements. True, he is almost certainly a Anti-Semite like most in that party, shows a history of being one, but in this case, not. His party ironically turned the hate decibals up high and pushed him out as a sacrificial offering to purify themselves of something they are all doing. Are they aware of what they did? Unlikely… like I said, he is factually correct, 100% correct, just tripped up some code words (Hitlee, Jews, Holocaust, defending Hitler (I am strongly pro Jewish myself, but not for the early Zionist stance, so won’t abscribe them or Hitler as being wise in this racially driven drive for migration)… these code words got everyone emotional, they hate him… he is scratching his head stumped.
We have a similar contradiction with pedophiles and homosexuals. We try to accept homosexuals, repressing the elephant in the room… most don’t like them, merely tolerate and associate with them (most are admittedly a low threat and voluntarily take themselves our of the gene pool, what more can you ask?), but we don’t hesitate to outright repress and ostrachize pedophiles. Largely the same, but we gotta dress them much differently. They are admittedly more threatening… but we go to absurd lengths to harass and destroy them… and we only do this because we know we can’t cure them… it is something entrained from fetished pleasures, largely involuntary… and finding a pedo-cure exactingly parallels finding a gay cure, at least on the level of paraphilic visualization and impulse control and pleasurable conditioned response.
We will go so far as to systematically violate the constitution to persecute them. They aren’t held to the same stipulations of banning Cruel and Unusual Punishments… as they are sentenced to be required to remain in the system… publically humiliating and stigmatizing them by putting them on watch lists for decades after they complete their sentence… denying them “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to a very large degree by restricting their movements, and banning them from similar use of property others have (such as not living near school zones, etc)… they can buy land there, just can’t use it.
Why? Because they are threatening as fuck… and we have no cure. We insist they have a moral choice, freedom of will while paradoxically asserting they don’t have any simultaneously… it is something deeply imbedded, a highly reinforced learned response that they don’t even want, would admittedly often voluntarily get rid of if they could. They can’t… they are stuck, fucked and damn.
Main reason the are so screwed however… is because we are deeply loathed to seek out cures. We are still recovering from the Freudian “Mother Fucker” protests in San Francisco back in the 60s, that is where that curse word comes from in fact. We had to completely drop all research into scientifically curing these disorders, some of which were admittedly barbaric, but not any more barbaric than some of the other crazy shit that occurred in other psychological areas of research from that era that have sense recovered, and become more professional and ethical.
End result is… in order to bring this disorder out of the wilderness into mainstream acceptance, homosexuality as being universally applauded at the point of ruining others lives when you don’t accept, we have to even more strongly repress pedophiles, more so now than before. We cannot lock on and categorize what a homosexual is in a psychological sense, mainstream psychologists are afraid to do this, much easier keeping it nebulas and dodging shard definitions that will cause you to loose your medical licence from media outrage and that of the popular left… but this nebulad, indefinable feel carries over to other sexual disorders too. No real research is allowed that can suggest a cross over or similarity, no search for a cure for pedophilia, as it is too eerily similar to the attempts for a gay cure… and therefore must be always, universally wrong.
So what do we do? Like Hitler, we went through a era of mixing historical compromises that simply shouldn’t be done. We torture the fuck out of them… we bring in “experts” to testify on them, but they are really only in the court room for saying he is fucked up, has a syndrome, can’t be cured, very high rate of recidivism, but should receive further counseling". Why? Why further counseling? Jack shit can happen positively… they end up homeless, miserable, unable to find work period, linking up with radical philosophies, thinking the whole system is stacked against them. What is the point of curing someone of their mental disorder if that is their life sentence? Might as well just keep them locked up with this is how we are going to approach things, set it up like the prisons in Butler’s Erewhon… as nice as you can make them, but in isolation.
We choose this path because we have to affirm one disease as normal, while acknowledging it’s closest kin, with sharp similarities, is horrendous… which the latter is. The sharper the divide, the more abnormal it becomes, the more disgusting it becomes.
This is why I think future societies will look back on modern day liberalism with absolute disgust. A thinker like Nancy Pelosi would be jailed, treated like we treat pedophiles today. Why? We’ve driven this charade to a absolute absurd length. We’ve trampled the constitution in two directions… in forcing gay marriage on everyone, despite no clause hinting in the constitution or in federal law this was ever constitutionally correct… and in persecution of pedophiles long after they served their crime. We’ve taken away our hatred for one group… which is still very much present, just repressed and perverted, and doubled it up on another group.
Society has good evolutionary reasons to be wary of both. People encouraging your children not to reproduce is disasterous for obvious reasons for anyone accepting of Darwinian presumptions of survival of lineages. Fearing pedophiles likewise can he a disaster, especially the violent kind. This isn’t the totality of all crimes, the totality of all things we hate… but it is obvious compared to earlier eras, we are taking a absurdly lopsided approach to this one in the current, and playing to psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo we wouldn’t tolerate elsewhere to steer our decision making process as a society.
What is to be done about that ex convict, the pedophile under the bridge? Nothing… he is ostracized. Offer him a job, rent a room in your house. No? See? We have good reason to say no. We spit on him, constantly embarrass him. How many thieves or arsonists have to register on a public watch list, decades after the completion of their sentence?
We don’t do that because of guys like Jean Valjean, a character in Les Miserables was allowed to reform, have his moment. A thieve can reform, a brute soften. A pedophile has a disorder… deeply fixed, like a drug addict. Hard as fuck to stop this. We choose to look the other way, as the truth is too hard to admit. In order to cure pedophilia, you gotta cure paraphilia, in order to do that, sexuality falls heavily and uncomfortable under the microscope. All of it, not just gay fetishes, literally everything linked to sexuality… but especially homosexuality. There is literally no way around it. Since there is no way around it, we have chosen simply not to look. As a result, we live in a barbaric dark age, treating this population like shit.
I would like to point out, posting his info like this openly further affirms my position… it is disturbing the mods allow this, a further form of publically humiliating him.
Even if the hate is natural, the hate is malleable and doesn’t refute our ability to show tolerance or compassion, on a wise tactical level, precautions and all. Zoot Allures, whatever his issues, is a seeker after philosophy. If someone has the ability to change, it would be such a person. We should be more tolerant of him, and not be driven by a blind, liberal hatred of him. He dug himself a deep hole, but isn’t unique in this. He can perhaps someday explain better than anyone why this has happened, further our understanding, and get the great engine of science working again. This should be out encouragements to him. Anything less is a dark age. We all gave aspects of this fool, this very stupid fool, in us. It happens to many in each community, we should take this situation more seriously. Anything less affirms my statement we live in a dark age ruled by liberal synchophants, a dysutopia I reject. Bad things happen, but I don’t consider any beyond the scope of philosophy. Abhorrent is Zoot’s case, but still human, worthy of study and willing to challenge him to do better with his life from now on.
